All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] btrfs: Check each block group has corresponding chunk at mount time
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:02:34 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6c7c32f7-9559-6f24-388f-df59abc89dc6@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180703091009.16399-5-wqu@suse.com>



On  3.07.2018 12:10, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> A crafted btrfs with incorrect chunk<->block group mapping, it could leads
> to a lot of unexpected behavior.
> 
> Although the crafted image can be catched by block group item checker
> added in "[PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item", if one
> crafted a valid enough block group item which can pass above check but
> still mismatch with existing chunk, it could cause a lot of undefined
> behavior.
> 
> This patch will add extra block group -> chunk mapping check, to ensure
> we have a completely matching (start, len, flags) chunk for each block
> group at mount time.
> 
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199837
> Reported-by: Xu Wen <wen.xu@gatech.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>

Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>

Just one minor nit below.

> ---
>  fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index 3d9fe58c0080..82b446f014b9 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -10003,6 +10003,41 @@ btrfs_create_block_group_cache(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>  	return cache;
>  }
>  
> +static int check_exist_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 start, u64 len,
> +			     u64 flags)
> +{
> +	struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &fs_info->mapping_tree;
> +	struct extent_map *em;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock);
> +	em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, start, len);
> +	read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock);
> +
> +	if (!em) {
> +		btrfs_err_rl(fs_info,
> +	"block group start=%llu len=%llu doesn't have corresponding chunk",
> +			     start, len);
> +		ret = -ENOENT;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +	if (em->start != start || em->len != len ||
> +	    (em->map_lookup->type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK) !=
> +	    (flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK)) {
> +		btrfs_err_rl(fs_info,
> +"block group start=%llu len=%llu flags=0x%llx doesn't match with chunk start=%llu len=%llu flags=0x%llx",
> +			     start, len , flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK,
> +			     em->start, em->len, em->map_lookup->type &
> +			     BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK);
> +		ret = -EUCLEAN;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +	ret = 0;

nit: I'd rather the ret be initialised when it's defined, it's changed
only if there is an error so it actually saves a line and makes it
obvious that we start with an assumption that the check should pass.
> +out:
> +	free_extent_map(em);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  int btrfs_read_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
>  {
>  	struct btrfs_path *path;
> @@ -10036,6 +10071,9 @@ int btrfs_read_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
>  		need_clear = 1;
>  
>  	while (1) {
> +		struct btrfs_block_group_item bg;
> +		int slot;
> +
>  		ret = find_first_block_group(info, path, &key);
>  		if (ret > 0)
>  			break;
> @@ -10043,7 +10081,20 @@ int btrfs_read_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
>  			goto error;
>  
>  		leaf = path->nodes[0];
> -		btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &found_key, path->slots[0]);
> +		slot = path->slots[0];
> +		btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &found_key, slot);
> +
> +		read_extent_buffer(leaf, &bg, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot),
> +				   sizeof(bg));
> +		/*
> +		 * Chunk and block group must have 1:1 mapping.
> +		 * So there must be a chunk for this block group.
> +		 */
> +		ret = check_exist_chunk(info, found_key.objectid,
> +					found_key.offset,
> +					btrfs_block_group_flags(&bg));
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			goto error;
>  
>  		cache = btrfs_create_block_group_cache(info, found_key.objectid,
>  						       found_key.offset);
> @@ -10068,7 +10119,7 @@ int btrfs_read_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
>  		}
>  
>  		read_extent_buffer(leaf, &cache->item,
> -				   btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, path->slots[0]),
> +				   btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot),
>  				   sizeof(cache->item));
>  		cache->flags = btrfs_block_group_flags(&cache->item);
>  		if (!mixed &&
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-07-04  6:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-03  9:10 [PATCH 0/5] Enhancement for block group/chunk verification Qu Wenruo
2018-07-03  9:10 ` [PATCH 1/5] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item Qu Wenruo
2018-07-04  2:20   ` Gu, Jinxiang
2018-07-04  5:54   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-07-04  7:37   ` Gu, Jinxiang
2018-07-03  9:10 ` [PATCH 2/5] btrfs: tree-checker: Detect invalid empty essential tree Qu Wenruo
2018-07-04  3:42   ` Gu, Jinxiang
2018-07-04  5:56   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-07-04  7:37   ` Gu, Jinxiang
2018-07-03  9:10 ` [PATCH 3/5] btrfs: relocation: Only remove reloc rb_trees if reloc control has been initialized Qu Wenruo
2018-07-04  5:23   ` Gu, Jinxiang
2018-07-04  7:37   ` Gu, Jinxiang
2018-07-03  9:10 ` [PATCH 4/5] btrfs: Check each block group has corresponding chunk at mount time Qu Wenruo
2018-07-04  5:45   ` Gu, Jinxiang
2018-07-05 23:41     ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-04  6:02   ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2018-07-03  9:10 ` [PATCH 5/5] btrfs: Verify every chunk has corresponding block group " Qu Wenruo
2018-07-04  6:09   ` Gu, Jinxiang
2018-07-04  7:08   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-07-04  9:46     ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-05 23:49       ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-05 15:18   ` David Sterba
2018-07-05 23:44     ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-16 13:16       ` David Sterba
2018-07-16 13:57         ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-17 12:33           ` David Sterba
2018-07-17 13:32             ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-19 14:22               ` David Sterba
2018-07-04 13:36 ` [PATCH 0/5] Enhancement for block group/chunk verification David Sterba
2018-07-05  1:36   ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-05 15:18     ` David Sterba

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6c7c32f7-9559-6f24-388f-df59abc89dc6@suse.com \
    --to=nborisov@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wqu@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.